JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. Heard Ms. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Barman, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.III, Kamrup(M) in F.C.(Criminal) Case No.162/2024, whereby the revision petitioner/father was directed to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- for maintenance of his minor son. 3. The impugned order dated 21.12.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : “Petitioner is present. Opposite party is absent without step. Heard both the parties on interim maintenance allowance on the last date fixed. This is a case under section 125 Cr.P.C by which the petitioner has claimed monthly interim maintenance allowance of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the opposite party for herself and their minor son. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.12.2018, the petitioner and the opposite party solemnized their marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, one male child was born on 21.10.2019. The petitioner is an employee in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Guwahati, Kamrup (M). The opposite party is an employee of Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam and his monthly salary is Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only). The opposite party in his written statement has admitted his marriage with the petitioner and paternity of the child. The opposite party in his written statement has not denied the claim of the petitioner regarding his profession and income. Perused the case record and affidavit of assets and liabilities of both the parties. The petitioner in her affidavit of assets and liabilities has mentioned her monthly income to be Rs.31,193/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three only). The opposite party in his affidavit of assets and liabilities has mentioned his monthly income to be Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only). Upon hearing both the parties, considering the fact of this case and the need of the petitioner, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the petitioner for their minor son as his interim maintenance till disposal of this case on merit. The petitioner is not considered for interim maintenance at this stage. Upon hearing both the parties, considering the fact of this case and the need of the petitioner, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the petitioner for their minor son as his interim maintenance till disposal of this case on merit. The petitioner is not considered for interim maintenance at this stage. This interim maintenance order shall be effective from the month of December, 2024 and the opposite party shall pay the amount within 10th day of every successive month, starting from the month of January, 2025 until further order through the bank account of the petitioner. Fixing 13.02.2025 for order on counseling.” 4. The impugned order is under challenge principally on the ground that while awarding the aforesaid maintenance amount, the learned Court below has failed to take into account the liabilities of the petitioner, which as submitted on behalf of the petitioner was necessary in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 . It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondent/wife is also an earning person having a monthly income of Rs.31,193/- (Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred ninety three), she should also bear part of the expenses of the child. 5. A perusal of the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities submitted by the revision petitioner before the learned Family Court would show that his principal liabilities consists of EMIs to the tune of Rs.21,668/- (Rupees twenty one thousand sis hundred sixty eight) on account of loan of RS.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) taken by him as Personal Loan from the Bank of India and also EMI of Rs.3,100/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred) on account of Car Loan amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand). Another amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is claimed as expenses of maintenance of Car and Bike. 6. All of the above expenses are on account of the petitioner’s own benefit and neither his wife/respondent or the petitioner’s son are beneficiaries of the said loans and therefore, the liabilities of the petitioner on account of repayment of such loans cannot be taken into consideration. 6. All of the above expenses are on account of the petitioner’s own benefit and neither his wife/respondent or the petitioner’s son are beneficiaries of the said loans and therefore, the liabilities of the petitioner on account of repayment of such loans cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise, it is quite possible that a spouse/person may obtain a huge amount of loan for his personal enjoyment and thereafter claim inability to pay maintenance for his wife or child on account of liabilities in the form of EMIs to be paid to the lender. Furthermore, the petitioner claims expenditure of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) annually and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month as admission fee and monthly expenses upon his nephew who is staying with the revision petitioner. But there is no mention in the instant petition as to why the petitioner’s nephew should get precedence over his son in the matter of payment of expenses of education and neither anything is stated as to why it is the revision petitioner, who has to bear the expenses of his nephew. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) as expenditure on account of legal expenses and transportation to and from the Court. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner is quite capable and happy to pay such a huge amount of rupees five lakhs as legal expenses etc., in his endeavour to avoid paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month on account of maintenance for his only child. 7. It is the considered view of this Court that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded by the learned Court below cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination having regard to the status of the parties as well as the income of the petitioner. It is also required to be noted that the respondent mother is looking after the child investing time, energy and labour which also has the corresponding value, although the same cannot be quantified in terms of money. But nevertheless it cannot be said that the mother is not contributing towards the expenses of the child. It is also required to be noted that the respondent mother is looking after the child investing time, energy and labour which also has the corresponding value, although the same cannot be quantified in terms of money. But nevertheless it cannot be said that the mother is not contributing towards the expenses of the child. It is also to be noted that the present order is only an interim one and at this stage the Court is not required to go minutely into the details of the expenses claimed and denied by the parties but only to arrive at a reasonable figure till the matter is finally decided. The Revisional Court will not interfere with orders of this nature unless and until any gross illegality incorrectness or impropriety is established. In the present case, I do not find any of the above infirmities vitiating the impugned order. 8. It appears that the petitioner despite the order of the learned Trial Court for payment of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, has been paying an amount of Rs.3,000/- only per month and that too intermittently. This despite the fact that there is no order staying the operation of the impugned order. 9. Having regard to the above, while dismissing the instant revision petition, it is directed that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the revision petitioner shall deduct an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month and deposit the same in the Bank account of the respondent/wife Smti. Suravi Sarma, the details of which will be submitted by her to the aforesaid authority w.e.f. the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted by the respondent wife to the said Officer, until final orders are passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. The revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.